To wit: perhaps explaining the reason, in itself, would constitute a breach of national security.

Or, perhaps, it would be embarrassing and paint the administration in a bad light. It might uncover war crimes. But we can't tell, since it is secret, right? ;)

It was never a secret on NPR; this is one of those questions where it sounds like I want you to embarrass yourself, but I'm really asking: On which network was that reported as a secret?

I know they reported the existence of the "signature strikes". But I was completely unaware that the criteria had been reported, since people trying to get information about them failed completely. Is this true?

Obama was in town last week (I think he's in town today, too, but I'm busy) and when I peddled my socialist newspaper I didn't get any takers. That's fine, of course, I'm used to getting glassy-eyed stares from mouth-breathers.

But there was an army of vendors (all of whom were black, btw, which is only weird because I didn't realize there were that many black people in New Hampshire) peddling t-shirts and what not and the #1 seller, as far as I could tell, was an "Obama Got Osama!" button.

EDIT: Oh yeah, it was also funny, because we are friendly with these dudes called NH Peace Action, which are basically 2 dozen or so retirees who do weekly vigils in Nashua against the wars of American imperialism. One of them is a quiet old dude, who, I guess, in his youth was a member of the Young Socialist Alliance. Anyway, in building for our anti-war rally, we drove up to poster Manchester and we ran into the same dudes, but this time, he had a clothes pin on his nose and was holding an "Obama 2012" sign. "You f@#+ing traitor!" we yelled at him, jocularly, and he got real defensive. Hee hee!

Your argument stands only if one of the candidates nudges things towards a positive end even if slightly, while the other doesn't. In the case where both lead to a net negative for society, with the difference being in the relative declivity of the fall, you are wrong, unless your final goal is just to slow the descent for as long as you can.

Of course, it may not be clear that Obama fits in the second scenario. That is why we're discussing. Some of us feel that Obama does amount to a net loss for society, as does Romney. Of course, enshrining the two-party system once more does not help leaving this. If candidates start losing the run for 3rd parties repeatedly, they might learn that their platforms do not consist of temporary or non-important issues.

As I've explained, I do feel that Obama has moved us in a net positive direction - certainly from where we were four years ago - and will continue to do so in his second term. Furthermore, the argument still holds up even if both candidates are a net negative, as long as one of them is significantly less of a net negative than the other. Vote presently for the better of the two candidates, and, if you feel like both were terrible, fight for election reform in the intervening four years. That's the only way any change will happen, and it's one hell of an uphill fight.

If a 3rd party candidate can draw enough of voters from one of the big 2 that it negatively effects the outcome of that party, this can help influence that party in the future. That party will then put enough effort in the issue that the 3rd party candidate is drawing people for that the 3rd party won't be able to influence the next election.

So, yes voting for a 3rd party candidate is likely to work against your interests in the short run, but it might ultimately be better for your interests in the long run.

If a 3rd party candidate can draw enough of voters from one of the big 2 that it negatively effects the outcome of that party, this can help influence that party in the future. That party will then put enough effort in the issue that the 3rd party candidate is drawing people for that the 3rd party won't be able to influence the next election.

So, yes voting for a 3rd party candidate is likely to work against your interests in the short run, but it might ultimately be better for your interests in the long run.

It's a nice theory. Hasn't seemed to work recently though. That's exactly what Nader is seen to have done in 2000. (Whether he really did or not is an open question, but he's the closest example we have for your scenario)

The Democrats responded not by changing policies to address people's concern about corporate influence to regain Nader voters, but by continuing to shift right to try to pick up disaffected conservatives.

Why do you think it'll work this time? When it doesn't do we just try again 4 years later, thinking it'll finally work like the theory says?

The Tea Party has had far more influence on the Republican Party and they didn't do it by running challengers in general elections. They did it by competing in the primaries to take over the Republican Party.

If a 3rd party candidate can draw enough of voters from one of the big 2 that it negatively effects the outcome of that party, this can help influence that party in the future. That party will then put enough effort in the issue that the 3rd party candidate is drawing people for that the 3rd party won't be able to influence the next election.

So, yes voting for a 3rd party candidate is likely to work against your interests in the short run, but it might ultimately be better for your interests in the long run.

There are way better ways to influence the platform of a major party than to deliberately sabotage their election chances.

For instance, changing the party from within, which has been brutally effective in very recent history.

If a 3rd party candidate can draw enough of voters from one of the big 2 that it negatively effects the outcome of that party, this can help influence that party in the future. That party will then put enough effort in the issue that the 3rd party candidate is drawing people for that the 3rd party won't be able to influence the next election.

So, yes voting for a 3rd party candidate is likely to work against your interests in the short run, but it might ultimately be better for your interests in the long run.

It's a nice theory. Hasn't seemed to work recently though. That's exactly what Nader is seen to have done in 2000. (Whether he really did or not is an open question, but he's the closest example we have for your scenario)

The Democrats responded not by changing policies to address people's concern about corporate influence to regain Nader voters, but by continuing to shift right to try to pick up disaffected conservatives.

Why do you think it'll work this time? When it doesn't do we just try again 4 years later, thinking it'll finally work like the theory says?

The Tea Party has had far more influence on the Republican Party and they didn't do it by running challengers in general elections. They did it by competing in the primaries to take over the Republican Party.

But I guess that isn't sufficiently pure.

Maybe people didn't see Nader's big issue as being for getting corporate influences out. Or maybe not big enough.

According to Wikipedia: "Areas of particular concern to Nader include consumer protection, humanitarianism, environmentalism, and democratic government."

The Dems in the last years have stepped up consumer protection and environmental legislation. That might be enough to cause the effect his die hard followers have to be minimized.

Except that, of course, I don't take my ball and go home. I take my ball out on the street and peddle socialist newspapers and talk to passers-by about the need to break with the Democrats and form a revolutionary workers party.

I get that most of you don't think that's either a) a desirable goal; or b) particularly effective, but it's kind of hard to maintain that exercizing my right to free speech, free association and free press is abdicating my "democratic power."

Yes you are, because you could do all those things and vote as well. But I'm really not that convinced that you're not doing anything really other than acting out a character that you created solely for this messageboard.

This is for Citizen X and all you other naysaying stooges of the plutocracy who disbelieve in my existence.

(On the far left is Father Varnalium, holding a sign that reads "Defeat U.$. Imperialism Thru Workers Revolution; two to the right is a dude who allegedly wrote a third party book on goblins for 3.0, but I never followed up on that; I, of course, am front and center; Pennywhistle Silverplume is on the far right. The Black Goblin, a.k.a. Tramora III Peasantsbane is the photographer because he refused to have a linkable image on these boards.) We found out after the rally that the dude second from the far rights also plays D&D and now he wants to come to our game.

Down with Obama and his wars!
For international proletarian socialist revolution!
Vive le Galt!

That you get a choice between A or B is really weird, how can you people all be that alike?

We aren't. Each of the two parties is composed of a wide wide range of people with many different opinions. They support their different parties for many different reasons, often disagreeing with most of the party platform except their few pet issues. Some people go to third parties that have fewer ideas they disagree with, but due to the setup of our government, those parties hold little power outside smaller election areas.

For instance, changing the party from within, which has been brutally effective in very recent history.

It has? Im going to assume that youre speaking of the Tea Party, whose main goal has been to curb government spending and executive excess. How exactly have they been "brutally effective"? Has spending gone down? Has executive authority been decreased? Is their candidate going to do either one of those things?!?

It has? Im going to assume that youre speaking of the Tea Party, whose main goal has been to curb government spending and executive excess. How exactly have they been "brutally effective"?

The Tea Party movement is arguably responsible for denying the Obama administration the ability to effectively pass or implement many of its pet legislative projects over the past two years. They ran out of steam, certainly, but that's mostly because it's a terrible, stupid movement and they practically live to make laughing stocks out of themselves. It won't have staying power, but the Tea Party movement's temporary surge in popularity dealt a pretty significant blow to Democratic momentum. Its grassroots days hold a lot of valuable lessons in how to influence party politics from within. Its later days hold a lot of lessons in how to get your movement hijacked, so you should probably do that part differently.

Honestly, the Tea Party was Astroturf from almost the get go. The GOP lost control of them fora while though as people who didn't know most of what the GOP says isn't what they really care about got elected.

Not the first time though Bush OK had to have the Two Santa Claus scheme explained to him after his first State of the Union speech.

The Democrats are no more saviors of the United States than are the Republicans. BOTH parties need to go away, and in a hurry.

Towing the party line election after election after election is one of the reasons why the US is in the pickle it is in. The sheeple need to wake up and take charge of their votes instead of blindly voting the party ticket. George Washington explicitly warned us after his second term against this very thing happening. It can and MUST change.

Both parties are helmed by career politicians. People who, with very rare exception, have never had to actually work to make ends meet. Excepting (maybe) "Joe the Plumber", to my knowledge not a single incumbent or current candidate for office in the 2012 elections anywhere in the United States has not come from a background of wealth and privilege. Certainly this seems true for the Congresscritters, Senators and of course the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates.

Politicians did not have to pay their own way through school nor work two full-time jobs / three or four part-time jobs just to put food on the table, keep a roof over their heads and otherwise scrape by during the inevitable economic recessions.

Politicians have never had to go through eviction, foreclosure or the threat of foreclosure.

Politicians have never had to hunt for anything they can get in terms of work so that they won't starve or be forced to move into a Maytag Condo because they've been evicted.

Politicians have never had to work so hard that their feet, hands and nose bleed after each day's work. Politicians don't come home from their multiple jobs, shovel what food they have into their mouths, grab the few hours' sleep that they can before the grind begins all over again the next day.

Politicians have never had to come home and heat up their last can of 2 year old mystery beans to run on for the next two or three days of back breaking labor just so that they could feed their families.

Politicians have never had to try to sleep in the freezing cold of winter nor the burning heat at the height of summer because they can't afford heating oil nor afford window unit air conditioners.

Politicians have never had to try to survive a winter with an address of 101 Maytag Drive.

Politicians have not been so poor that they've had to literally watch and feel their teeth disintegrate inside their mouths, nor had a tooth infection so severe that Death is far, far more likely to come visiting for Christmas than Santa Claus.

Politicians do not have to take a gamble and move half-way or all of the way across the country on the slim hope that where they are going will provide a better life than where they left.

When the politicians start doing what they're supposed to be doing instead of jockeying to remain in office most of the time that they are IN office, when they have an actual clue as to what it really means to work for a living, to live paycheck to paycheck, to be a normal citizen ... then they can believably claim to be just another citizen.

Until the politicians are anything other than career parasites getting figuratively and/or literally bloated off my communities', state's and country's largess, they can collectively kiss my tucas.

Show me a politician that knows what it means to actually be a normal citizen, you will be showing me some one who is likely to get my vote.

Turin, thank you for sharing your story with such aplomb and courtesy. I would like to hear more of your thoughts on banks, however, as I do think they are equally to blame for your situation along with the administration.

Two weeks later, my apologies Freehold.

The banks took advantage of the modifications to what amounts to being the cornerstone legislation govorning real estate practices starting some time in 2000.

~snips long-winded, unnecessary history lesson~

Despite all that has gone on over the past 12 years and change, "the banks" have learned very little. IMO thanks to the bail outs that most of the taxpaying citizenry will get absolutely nothing out of.

The end result of the class action lawsuit equates to a pittance, less than a 10% reduction of "Joe American's" typical mortgage.

The banks are still holding on to what is called a "shadow inventory" of properties. A lot of them. They're "shadow inventory" mainly because they have not gone through with formal foreclosure proceedings on them for fear of deteriorating the value of the properties. "The Banks" for some reason seem to be determined to retain pre-collapse values on this shadow inventory.

There are several major problems with this approach.

A lot of people, when they've determined that they have no option but to walk away from their home, just pack up and go. Largely due to not being aware of the fact that, sooner or later, the bank will take notice of their not getting paid. If you're staying local you can eventually be offered relocation assistance (i.e., money) in exchange for forking over the keys to the property IF you don't chew the place up. You're still getting foreclosed, but adding an eviction on top of the foreclosure is analagous to putting your credit rating's entire head in front of a shotgun. One barrel is bad enough - you don't want both barrels. Give yourself the time to scrape together moving funds.

How long it takes to go from not paying a note to seeing the sherriff papers on the door varies by state and some times by locality, anywhere from a few months to as long as a few years. You really don't want to see sherriff papers ... if you do, it's already too late, you've ignored the phone calls and letters and door notes for too long when those papers are taped onto the door.

Unoccupied homes deteriorate quickly. A home with a basement with no electricity to run the sump pump after a fairly normal fall and winter come spring will have the worst kind(s) of black mold riddling the basement. Add on a year or two of vacancy before the bank finally gets around to sending some one to check the place out and that black mold does horrific things. Air circulation, humdity control and steady interior temperatures help prolong the deterioration.

Inevitably, bugs get inside the place. Weather damage happens to roof, siding and windows. Yards aren't maintained properly. Mail piles up, kids break in or worse, plumbing vandals get in, gut the wiring and piping and leave the water to effectively destroy the place. This is a major factor in the existence of the "shadow inventory" - occupied properties simply don't deteriorate as fast as unoccupied ones, all else being equal. During the Great Depression the banks had to resort to paying people to live in foreclosed properties precisely for this reason. Some areas did not recover until the mid-1950s.

Foreclosures need to happen to keep things moving along. Investors right now are not flipping properties in most areas - there's not enough margin after capitol gains are accounted for. What they are doing is buying for the long term. Renovating a property enough to attract renters who in turn (usually) keep the property safely occupied and paying for themselves. In some areas, rentals more and more are resulting a modest profit. There is not enough supply to meet the resurging housing demand, nor will there be for at least a few more years. In 5 or 10 years all those investment properties, after the interest rates have gone back up over 4 or 5% and the recession has presumably ended is looking like a great time to sell those investment properties.

The banks, even now, still offer ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) and some other dregs from the bubble building days. AVOID THEM AT ALL COSTS!

The one exception I've heard of is those who move every few years. Those ARMs (presuming that they start put for the first 3-5 years at least a percentage point below current rates) can be worth the while.

If you can secure a low interest 15-year fixed, your note will be a bit higher but you'll literally pay it off in half the time. 30 year notes are still the standard, but have a slightly higher APR than on the 15s.

I chat with her "running mate" (neither take it seriously) almost daily. Very cool lady.

My comrades are pushing for a vote for Stein or Anderson, but I maintain that if you're going to throw your vote away you might as well do it for the candidate who says rich people are all coke-snorting pedophiles.